MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308915413 · doi:10.1123/kr.2022-0024

Work-Integrated Learning in the Development of a Kinesiology Degree

2022· article· en· W4308915413 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyle Guay, Carey L. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueKinesiology Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsCapilano University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesiologyBachelorExperiential learningLadderingPsychologyWork (physics)Inclusion (mineral)Medical educationProfessional developmentCareer developmentOccupational therapyPedagogyEngineering ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preparing kinesiology undergraduates with the foundational knowledge required by professional organizations is no longer enough when considering the skills students are required to demonstrate upon entering the job market. Work-integrated learning, embedded through curricular and cocurricular activities, has seen extensive growth in the posteducation landscape of Canadian institutions. With increasing expectations from future employers, graduates in the field of kinesiology require more experiential opportunities to meet these expectations. The aim of this paper is to provide commentary on how the Bachelor of Kinesiology program at Capilano University underwent the necessary changes to incorporate a required professional practice stream to align with industry expectations. The authors discuss the development of laddering course learning outcomes, course content, reflection, and student evaluation. Additionally, they provide rationale for its inclusion in the second year of the program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKinesiology ReviewSame topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207